Monday, June 18, 2007

Thanks, one and all for your interest!

Wow! Thank you William Dembski for making my site famous :) (or infamous if you prefer)

This site is a proposed International coalition of non-religious ID scientists/scholars/supporters. I have put out this blog looking for others like me, who are interested in origins science, but are not at all religious.
It is not appropriate to exclude anyone from science on the basis of religion. It is not my intention with this site to exclude the religious. However, it does seem necessary at this time to establish a loose coalition of non-religious ID proponents in order to stand up for academic freedom of inquiry for *all* scientists (religious and non-religious alike).

Unfortunately there have been lots of inaccurate statements on various blogs about this site and my ideas. As a general rule of thumb it is always good to avoid spin and go to the source to find out what is actually being said.

For instance this commment posted by Posted by: Oleg Tchernyshyov June 16, 2007 10:14 PM : at "Stranger Fruit"


"Brookfield is also the author of a delightfully silly paper
In Search of a Cosmic Super-Law: The Supreme "Second law" of
Devolution. One of the highlights of this work is a
suggestion to replace the 2nd law of thermodynamics with
Murphy's law. I am not kidding."


I am not proposing the replacement of the 2nd law of thermodynamics with Murphy's law. I am proposing that both the Second Law of thermodynamics and the Second law of Black hole dynamics be treated as laws of information loss. I am proposing that the entire universe be treated -- not as a material universe/structure -- but as an information structure -- and that this model in turn will provide a new map of the core of a black hole singularity -- a model in which the core's area (surface) is directly proportional to the entropy.

8 comments:

Duae Quartunciae said...

Hi William,

Yes; I thought this little brouhaha would be bringing you a lot of hits! It's rather fun when a blog hits the public eye suddenly. You might find it interesting to put a meter on your blog a keep an eye on how many visits you get, and from where. I did that, and I find it very useful.

With respect to your proposed coalition, you'll be able to find a handful of non-religious skeptics about conventional evolutionary biology. The world is wide, and its rather surprising what one can turn up!

It seems to me that you've set yourself a slightly higher hurdle than this, by going beyond criticism of an established model and into advocacy of a supposed alternative of some kind, which you have called "ID".

Given that this is in the name of your proposed coalition, it might be useful to spell out what that means on its own terms, without any special regard to other theories you don't accept. This is a common question in these discussions.

In all seriousness, how do you define "ID"; and do you consider it to be a scientific theory?

Cheers -- Duae Quartunciae

Oleg Tchernyshyov said...

Let's go directly to the source, i.e. your PCID paper:

In “A Murphylian Second Look at the Second Law” I provide an examination and analysis of the theoretical difficulties and challenges of the Second Law of Thermodynamics in finite systems. I take a perhaps unexpected, approach to the local
Second “Law” employing “Murphy’s Law” as a temporarily alternative. Through the use of “Murphylian Analysis” I argue for the existence a more fundamental physical law behind the presently uncertain Second Law of Thermodynamics.


You elaborate further below:

Thus, we now have two putative laws. The Second “Law” of Thermodynamics which states “In a closed system, entropy must always increase” “except in reversible systems where it stays the same”(Penrose ENM-1989), or during Poincaré recurrence where it actually goes in reverse(?)”

This, however is not a law! This is a joke! “It slices, it dices, it goes forwards, it goes backwards.” I don’t think so.

Luckily we now have Murphy’s law that states “if something can go wrong, it will.” Or more scientifically “If left to its own devices, the universe is doomed!”
(emphasis mine --O.T.)

I don't think you have any wiggle room, William. :)

William Brookfield said...

Hi Olag,

"Murphy's Law" is but a general principle. “Murphy’s Law” is to be considered here only temporarily as a place holder -- an alternative -- over the length of time that one is reading Part Two of my article). Through the use of “Murphylian Analysis” (globalization). I argue for the existence a more fundamental unified and relativistic physical law behind the present statistical Second Law of Thermodynamics.

My problem is not with the second Law itself, but with its present statistical formulation. I am proposing a form of dissipative (devolutionary) relativistic infodynamics as a solution to the unification of the two Second Laws. This involves (among other things) a re-interpretation of gravity -- not as spacetime curvature -- but as spacetime erosion. It is the simplicity of this particular erosion function that makes it amenable to a curvature (mis)representation.

"Murphys Law" of course lacks any specific reference to General relativity. It was merely used an explanitory tool and as a starting point (not the ending point!) for my subsequent reconceptualization of the Second Law's possibility space.

The key here is to read the entire article in order to see what I actually proposed (way back then in 2002).

William Brookfield said...

Sorry I spelled your name wrong Oleg ..oops

Oleg Tchernyshyov said...

Hi William,

That's quite allright.

I don't see any point in discussing your paper: it speaks for itself. However, if you want to have some good fun you're welcome to drop by Mark Chu-Carroll's blog Good Math, Bad Math. He devoted two threads to your paper, which I find truly remarkable.

All the best,

William Brookfield said...

HI Oleg,

Thanks for the heads up. It was good fun indeed. I am thinking that compared to poor Michael Egnor I got off easy. I must say I do appreciate the fact that Mark Chu provided some actual content. I enjoyed his discussion of Poincare's recurrence.

Re: Part One "Hawking's Error (1996)."

"Randomness" refers to a uniform probability distribution over a set of possible outcomes. As a member of the system set, the very very occasional appearance of "monkey shakespeare" is necessary to complete the distribution -- to make it uniform/and therefore random. Hawking's (and Mark Chu's) argument therefore amounts to a claim that a random typing agent (a monkey) can produce…random typing. As an argument for the production of order (probabilistic non-uniformity), "by pure chance" (probabilistic uniformity) the argument is worthless. Hawking's monkey “shakespeare" is perfectly consistent with the uniform probability distribution (randomness).

William Brookfield said...

Hi Oleg,

"I invited the author to appear on this (Mark Chu-Carroll's) blog. Stay tuned."
Posted by: oleg Tchernyshyov June 20, 2007 05:50 PM -- Good Math, Bad Math


While I have indeed visited Mark Chu-Carrolls blog. I was not aware that I had been "invited to appear."

Sadly Mark Chu-Carroll has not understood even the first part of my article. -- see above paragraph regarding my 1996 article "Part One"

..and from "Part Three" -- 2002.

"This does not mean that the underlying Law is bad, for as I have shown, our inability to keep track of a law does not negate its reality. Its implications therefore must be taken very seriously. The picture may be pixel-ated, but the picture(arrow) is true." -- Brookfield 2002 Part Three.

The "arrow" here refers to the GSL -- the generalized Second Law of thermodynamics and Black hole dynamics that I am claiming "holds always" (I.E., it is a real law).

Steven Hawking (Brief History of Time) and Mark Chu-Carrol are claiming that the second law "does not hold always." I am disputing this claim of "Second lawlessness."

"The second law of thermodynamics has a rather different status than that of other laws of science, such as Newton's law of gravity, for example, because it does not hold always, just in the vast majority of cases." Stephen Hawking BHOT pg 103 My emphasis

Clearly it is Stephen Hawking (and Mark Chu-Carroll apparently) who are questioning the Second Law.

dobson said...


Steven Hawking (Brief History of Time) and Mark Chu-Carrol are claiming that the second law "does not hold always." I am disputing this claim of "Second lawlessness."


I think you have misunderstood the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Do not worry, most people do.

The 2nd law is a great generalization, which is indubitably true when applied to any closed system (e.g. the universe as a whole): Over time, differences in temperature, pressure, and density tend to even out in a physical system that is isolated from the outside world.

This does not hold true for non-closed systems: localized entropy can decrease. If you want proof of this look no further than your own Fridge-freezer.

I can assure you that Professor Stephen Hawking really does understand thermodynamics.

Allow me to be rude for a moment; Do you think it is possible that you might have misunderstood the 2nd law of thermodynamics and that Professor Hawking might in fact be entirely correct in his interpretation?

Thanks again for taking the time to publish this comment.

Dobson